thomaswoodfandomcom-20200216-history
User talk:TWR98
Welcome Hi, I'm an admin for the community. Welcome and thank you for your edit to 2018! If you need help getting started, check out our or contact me or here. For general help, you could also stop by Community Central to explore the forums and blogs. Please leave me a message if I can help with anything. Enjoy your time at ! User talk:FlyingDuckManGenesis Thomas Wood set names Hello! I'm wondering where you found out the names of the new sets or if thats just the names you gave them right now. Thanks, Cinderthomtrooper (talk) 20:07, September 1, 2017 (UTC) Hi, some of them were deciphered from the grainy leaks we've seen (like the diesel one). The rest are educated guesses that can easily be altered once official names are revealed. TWR98 (talk) 20:29, September 1, 2017 (UTC) Ok Thank you! Cinderthomtrooper (talk) 21:04, September 1, 2017 (UTC) RE: New WOOD images They're all from Fisher-Price's US store, but you probably have to use the search bar. They did an update overnight for new products from almost all ranges. Jdogman (talk) 21:29, December 16, 2017 (UTC) Image titles We advise in our naming convention that most image titles must begin with the year. That is because usually the year is the most important part of identifying an item and how the it differs with the same item from another year. It's one of the few methods we're sticking to. Jdogman (talk) 12:12, December 19, 2017 (UTC) RE: Regarding Wattsj528 Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've banned his sockpuppet accounts and will give him a reminder. I'll be talking to the other admins if his image activity continues. --Jdogman (talk) 22:59, January 4, 2018 (UTC) RE: Changes to infoboxes/page tabs I have been thinking about the changes to infoboxes and we'll probably redesign them to the infobox design which Wikia seem to pushing. I had thought about what it would be like if the infobox used a tab gallery system, and I turned it down because I thought it would affect the gallery, where I wanted all the different versions to be seen at once. I hadn't been thinking about splitting galleries into their own page because I thought there weren't enough images on pages to warrant doing so and I thought maybe just the variants gallery could be split off. I had a thought about your proposal and then I thought that this could be a system we implement some time. If the infoboxes use a tab gallery, then the gallery sections could be split into their own pages and the comparisons I wanted showing all the versions at the same time in the galleries could be unaffected. However, we've got to make sure the tab gallery system looks presentable and tidy. Prototypes do not look suitable in the gallery because they were never made. This would be a big procedure for the wiki, and there are a few other things I wanted to take care of on here before starting it. I'll also ask the other admins about it. Jdogman (talk) 01:14, January 17, 2018 (UTC) Banned You are blocked! Keekre25 (talk) 18:10, January 30, 2018 (UTC) Rickety The Rickety page has been renamed "Rickets is a bad disease" by a vandal. I can't rename it back! RE: Undoing the Skarloey Edit Oh, whoops. I did not realise that, and I normally check the preview button, but in this case I must not have checked it. Thanks for the head's up! :D ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:23, February 19, 2018 (UTC) Hi! I know I already told you on twitter, but I hope your original channel gets fixed! WoodenRails (talk) 20:22, March 1, 2018 (UTC) 1995 Yearbook Do you still have the 1995 yearbook by chance? If so, I was hoping you'd be able to take a better quality version of this image and perhaps some of the other images from that yearbook. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:26, March 6, 2018 (UTC) Switch Tower Have you seen any evidence that the 2002 versions of the Switch Towers do not use clickity clack track? If so, do you think you'd be able to present the evidence to me? Because I want to see the evidence for myself. If possible, I was hoping you'd be able to show me a comparison between the 2002 version and the 2000-2001 version. I know for a fact that my Switch Tower's track did not look like the conventional traction rail track. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:48, March 11, 2018 (UTC) :It's possible that it was an older switch tower in newer packaging. And even though pretty much all my track or almost all my track dates from 2002 at the earliest, while I was a collector of Thomas Wooden Railway toys, I still ended up with a couple of pieces of clickity-clack track here and there. :I definitely remember my Switch Tower coming in a 2002 box, even though it was about 15 years ago during the 2002 Christmas Holidays when I was only 7 years old, I remember because it had Bill or Ben on the front of the box, and I erroneously assumed that Bill and Ben must be included in the box, but one of my relatives told me that they weren't actually going to be in the box, they were just there for the example pictures. :As a collector of Thomas Wooden Railway trains and sets, I had a total of two sets. Conductor's Figure 8 Set (2002 version) and Let's Have a Race Set (2003 version). However my Bertie had 2002 on his wheels so he was actually the 2002 Bertie, and I think both sets came with a 2001 Sir Topham Hatt. If I remember correctly, the sign posts etc. had 2001 on them. But almost all the track was traction rail track. :In 2002 when I was 7 years old, I remember getting Skarloey for my 7th birthday. One of the Skarloeys looked different so I chose the different one. In selections, back when I was younger, I had a thing for choosing the odd ones out. Had I known that this was a 1998 Skarloey, I probably would have chosen one of the newer ones. The 1998 Skarloey as you probably will know featured a smaller face, no name on his chassis, a wooden funnel and head, and darker and pinker livery. :Unlike the other toys that I collected, this Skarloey had paint that was prone to chipping. I didn't mind this back when I was younger, but it definitely inspired me not to let any of my other Thomas trains get as chipped as my Skarloey did. The chips weren't really bad for an owner that didn't play rough with his trains, but there were still quite a few chips in comparison to the rest of the models I got. :What's weird is that my Skarloey, despite dating from 1998, came in a 2002 packet with a 2002 character card, and probably a 2002 catalog, though it was so long ago, I can't remember which catalog belonged to him. My BoCo, despite dating from 2003 when BoCo was first reintroduced, came with 2002 on his wheels, and a 1998 or 1999 (can't remember which because I forgot which catalog belonged to him) catalog. :My 2004 Emily for some reason came with a 2003 catalog, even though the catalog dated from before Emily was introduced. So yeah, there have proven to be some packaging inconsistencies. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:31, March 11, 2018 (UTC) 1998-1999 boxes not used for early 2000 models? Are you sure that the 1998-1999 boxes weren't officially used for early 2000 models? My versions of Peter Sam and NW Brakevan came in 1998-1999 style boxes or at least had 1998-1999 style stickers, and they were the 2000 models. My 2000 Peter Sam even lacked a name on his chassis for some reason which is weird, because my Flying Scotsman dated from 1999 and had his name on his chassis. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:09, March 11, 2018 (UTC) RE: Early 2000 Models You're probably right about that. Out of all the Thomas toys that I've ever collected, only three of them dated from 2000. Peter Sam had no name on his chassis, while NW Brakevan and Bertram with Scrap Cars did. Only two toys that I've had dated from 1999. Duke had no name on his chassis, while Flying Scotsman did. His tenders however did not. I don't think the 1999-2003 Flying Scotsman models ever had names on the tender's chassis' since I once knew someone that had the 2003 Flying Scotsman, and they had no names on the chassis' of the tenders. I do however remember my 2000 Peter Sam coming in an old style box and he came with a 1999 style character card, but it had 2000 on it. Bertram's was pretty much the same, but with the logo that was introduced in 2000. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:00, March 11, 2018 (UTC)